The Gaying of America

In Making Gay Okay, Robert Reilly says the ascendancy of men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) started with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s victory over Aristotle and that once philosophy fell the triumphant march through the institutions was quick and maybe even inevitable.

Reilly explains that the debate centers on the question of what is natural and not, and how to distinguish between right and wrong. He describes how the Greeks fell in love with reality when they discovered nature and that the purpose of things was knowable and unchangeable even by the whim of gods.

The author writes, “A dog wagged his tail because that was the way of a dog. Egyptians painted their funeral caskets in bright colors because that was the way of Egyptians.” In the pre-philosophical world the word nature did not exist so it was not possible to distinguish between the nature of a dog and the custom of an Egyptian. Customs change. Nature never does. Aristotle “taught that the essence, or Nature, of a thing is what makes it what it is and not something else.”

This is, well, naturally constraining to many who would strain against their nature or who see such nature as imposed by society, the family, or the Church.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau “turned Aristotle’s notion of Nature on its head. Aristotle said that Nature defined not only what man is but what he should be. Rousseau countered that Nature is not an end—a telos—but a beginning: man’s end is his beginning, or, as Allan Bloom expressed it, “there are not ends, only possibilities.”

Reilly Cover graphicRousseau had a particular hatred for that most constraining of institutions, the family that he considered artificially constructed. He called for the education of children to be taken from the family and given to the state. As Reilly puts it, “Once society is atomized, once the family ceases to interpose itself between the individual and the state, the state is free to transform the isolated individual by force into whatever version of ‘new man’ the revolutionary visionaries espouse.”

Reilly says the influence of Rousseau is all around us today, from the unusable unkempt forest near his home to the Obama campaign ads featuring “Julia” who from cradle to grave was nothing more than a ward of the state and the family is no where present, not even when she wants to have a baby.

A noted music critic, Reilly shows Rousseau’s influence in the music of composer John Cage whose compositions “were based on the irregularities in the composition paper he used, selected by tossing dice, or written with the help of charts derived from the Chinese I Ching.”  Reilly says the “purpose” of all this is precisely to show there is no purpose.

All of this is to show how the purpose of sex was undermined first by an undermining of philosophy and the understanding of Nature. As Reilly puts it, “As seen through Rousseau’s influence, the case for homosexuality is a vulgarization of a philosophical anarchism that denies the existence of teleological Nature and therefore the ability to discriminate between the use and abuse of things.”

But old nature is a powerful thing, and nature tied to conscience is practically unassailable, certainly unassailable without powerful justifications, rationalizations, and as it turns out, the embrace and celebration of society. Aristotle wrote, “Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.” One thing you notice in the MSM debates is how immediately it becomes personal and this is precisely because it is so personal.

Reilly says the insistent voice of conscience must be muffled in favor of persistent sinning. The sinner does this through internal justification and rationalization and the further insistence that the sin be accepted and even celebrated by society at large.

Reilly tells us “Rationalizations for moral misbehavior work like this. Anyone who chooses an evil act must present it to himself as good; otherwise, as Aristotle taught, he would be incapable of choosing it. When we rationalize, we convince ourselves that heretofore forbidden desires are permissible. In short, we assert that bad is good.” Conscience may struggle to the fore and repentance follows. “The temporary rationalization crumbles, and moral reality is restored.” What of habitual moral failure? Conscience must be “obliterated.”

We see this in the claims that abortion is a positive good. Killing the elderly sick is good for them and for society.

Reilly shows how the acceptance of sodomy is tied to the larger sexual chaos in society. How can a porn addict, who regularly views explicit sex acts of all kinds, object in any way to homosexual behavior between two men who supposedly love each other and supposedly want a lifelong commitment of marriage? I’ll accept your proclivity if you accept mine.

Write this large and you see “As a moral act, sodomy should be normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in our schools as a standard. If it is a standard, it should be enforced. In fact, homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be ordained as priests and bishops. Sodomy should be sacramentalized.”

Most of Reilly’s book describes in great detail how the MSM ethos marched through the institutions; science, parenting, education, Boy Scouts, the Military, and even U.S. foreign policy.

He writes, “There are two fundamentally different conceptions of science—one that is scientific and one that is not.” One deals with reality. The other seeks a false reality. Unscientific science “is an endeavor not so much to understand what exists and how to bring it to fruition, but to gain power over and fundamentally transform it. Man becomes the ultimate master through the exercise of his will by the instrument of science; he makes all things new according to his desires.”

He looks at two political campaigns within the scientific establishment that sought not the truth but to advance a cause.

Getting homosexuality as a sickness out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) was essential to moving acceptance of MSM forward. Noted activist Frank Kameny said, “I feel that the entire homophile movement is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it.”

Reilly posits, “One would suppose that this would first require the scientific examination of evidence. Only afterward could a conclusion be drawn on whether homosexuality is a psychological problem. This is not what happened.”

What did happen was a political campaign, one that included invading meetings, clandestine conspiracies, and threats.

Reilly quotes activist Donn Teal, “On May 14, 1970, psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and women’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco…” to protest the reading of a paper on “aversion therapy.” Activists invaded many such meetings.

“But why would members of the APA give in to this pressure, particularly since there was no scientific basis to justify the change in classification,” Reilly asks. The answer is that many of the psychiatrists were themselves men who have sex with men and were therefore “heavily invested in the rationalization for reasons of their personal lives.”

President elect of the APA in 1973 was Dr. John P. Spiegel who was at the time a closeted gay man. According to Spiegal’s granddaughter, Alix, now a journalist with National Public Radio, her grandfather began meeting surreptitiously in his office with a group of young psychiatrists, some of them closeted by necessity because homosexuality was not allowed within the profession, who were interested in the same kind of change as the outside agitators.

In a radio program Alix Spiegel tells the story of the night during the APA annual convention in Honolulu when everything changed.

The key guy to make the change was Dr. Robert Spitzer, head of the nomenclature committee of the APA. Ron Gold, a member of the Gay Activist Alliance, had been hectoring Spitzer. Spitzer told him he doubted there were any homosexual psychiatrists. As it happened, there was a meeting that night of the gay psychiatric insurgency called GayPA—one presumes a play on APA—in a garish Tiki bar and he invited Spitzer along. Spitzer was shocked to see who was there; “the head of the Transaction Analysis Association and the guy who handed out all the training money in the United States, and the head of various prestigious psychiatry departments at various universities were all there.” A veritable who’s who of Spitzer’s powerful colleagues.

Spitzer’s presence unnerved the men of GayPA and they tried to get him out but Gold insisted that Spitzer be allowed to stay. And then something notable happened. A young man walked into the bar and he recognized Spitzer and Gold and the head of GayPA. He was an army psychiatrist who had heard Gold speak and was inspired to visit a gay bar for the very first time. He was so moved to see obvious acceptance of homosexuality by the psychiatric elite that he collapsed in tears.

That evening at the garish gay bar, Robert Spitzer sat down and changed the 81 offending words in the DMV. Such is science done in the age of non-science, anti-science, scientism.

Reilly knows he will come under attack and most of it will be unfair and none focused on the case he is making but will be more along the Alinsky line of name, shame, and isolate; no real engagement, only mockery and plenty of it.

Reilly performed the required kabuki, the required minuet for critics of the gay ethos. He wrote, quite sincerely, “It should be emphasized that this critique of the homosexual cause is not an attack upon homosexuals, nor is it generated by any animus against them.” But that won’t help. It never does.

In fact, the boys have already gone after him. Right Wing Watch accused him of saying on radio that gay sex is worse than murder. He said nothing of the kind. He said that a murderer or a porn user will feel remorse and seek forgiveness while someone habituated to their sin, like many MSM, will seek justification and rationalization.

How fast did all this happen? Fifty years ago, Frank Kameny was arrested in Lafayette Park, then a notorious homosexual trysting place across from the White House. Kameny lost his government job, sued and lost all the way to the Supreme Court but in the process became a gay icon.

In 2008 this hero of the gay movement wrote a public letter in which he said, “Let us have more and better enjoyment of more and better sexual perversions, by whatever definition, by more and more consenting adults…. If bestiality with consenting animals provides happiness to some people, let hem pursue their happiness. This is Americanism in action.”

In 2009 Barack Obama gave Frank Kameny an award in the White House.

Kameny’s home in Washington DC is actually listed in the National Register of Historic Places and his papers are archived in the Library of Congress.

And yet there are pictures of Kameny as a keynote speaker at meetings of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. None of this makes sense.

Robert Reilly has written a very lucid and learned book about an age in rapid transition. He has told a portion of what happened, and a good portion of why, but questions remain.

Rousseau’s ideas have been circulating for 200 years. How is it they have all of a sudden won the day? What is it about us that we in our age have surrendered? How did the world go sideways in the space of a few decades? How did we move from relative calm to chaos so fast?

These are questions for a book 100 years from now. Only a look back will tell that tale and then, only maybe. Sadly Reilly won’t be here to tell it. Yet another reason to look forward to the General Judgment.

Editor’s note: The photo of President Obama and gay activist Frank Kameny in the Oval Office was taken June 17, 2009. (Photo credit: Reuters / Larry Downing)

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. His forthcoming book Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data—out this summer from Regnery Publishing—contains a chapter on marriage and family. He is also the author of the new book Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ just published by Tan Books.

  • Arriero

    It seems a good book, I like the core thesis. Mr. Reilly goes to the trunk of our very anti-Catholic (post-modern) society: the French Revolution in its Robesperriean anti-Catholic slope. It’s worth saying than libertarianism – which is merely soft anarchism, being anarchism a cleavage of marxism, or maybe the other way around -, marxism and the left in general is a product of the French Revolution. Everybody with a minimum of historical knowledge knows that the traditional right was always Altar and Throne and the traditional left defined itself in opposition to the Ancien Regime during the first gatherings in the Assemblé Nationale, where they sat down on the left (it is worth saying that during the first Councils of the Church, especially the first Council of Nice, the dissenting voices sat down on the left too). Apart from that, the author of the book should also say that while the French Revolution – through the explicit influence that exerted Rousseau – is the trank, the roots of the post-modern anti-Catholic tree are the Reformation, which opened the box of relativism. And America has always been full of «reformers» and «reformed» (like the very «progressive» North Europe). It’s no coincidence these kind of things happen there.

  • Bedarz Iliaci

    A hedonist may claim that pleasure is an end of sex too. And who is to gainsay him?
    The Aristotle vs Rousseau idea is, in particular, bizarre since same-sex relations were never more respectable in Aristotle’s heyday than 21C America.

    • Watosh

      Robert Reilly’s book takes on these arguments and explains why these arguments don’t hold water.

      As for the criticism that the tone is “unCatholic in its tone of placing this matter in the context of American politics,” one of the aims of the book is to explain how homosexuality won acceptance through American politics, however the book does explain the sound reasons in logic and the natural law that are solid grounds for rejecting homosexuality as “normal.” Now of course some might take the position that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible so therefore no further discussion is needed, but many of us take the position that the truths in the Bible, since they are truths, will be reflected in the natural laws, and are supported by reason, which strikes me as a reasonable

      I have read the book and it is a must read for every Catholic concerned about the events that are taking place.

    • Austin Ruse

      Actually, Reilly deals with that question in the book and shows what you say is not true at all. Big differences between same sex behavior then and now.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Aristotle’s discussion of the question is rather interesting. In the Nicomachean Ethics, he observes that some states or conditions “arise as a result of disease (or, in some cases, of madness, as with the man who sacrificed and ate his mother, or with the slave who ate the liver of his fellow), and others are morbid states (C) resulting from custom, e.g. the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth, and in addition to these, sexual intercourse with males [τῶν ἀφροδισίων τοῖς ἄρρεσιν – tōn aphrodisiōn tois arresin]; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.” (Arist Eth Nic 1148b 27-30)

      I give the whole passage, because I find it interesting that Aristotle should link sodomy with nail-biting or eating coal; perhaps, with his stress on final causes, he thought of them all as essentially purposeless activities. But I am only guessing.

      (NB Some English versions translate τῶν ἀφροδισίων τοῖς ἄρρεσιν as paederasty, why I don’t know: Ἀφροδισιάζω means to have sexual intercourse and ἄρσην means male; ἄρρεσιν is the dative plural. Had he meant paederasty, there is a perfectly good Greek word for it, παιδεραστία – paederasty, as it happens]

  • NormChouinard

    While I would not quibble with the author’s perspective, he knows the history far better than I, I find this piece unCatholic in its tone of placing this matter in the context of American politics rather than in the Church’s mission of spreading the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ. This is not a matter of victory in terms of political will just as it is not a matter to acquiesce to the will of the gay marriage lobby. There is a Third Way. http://vimeo.com/93079367

    • Interested

      Nothing unCatholic at all and the tone is perfect and consistent with the faith.

      • NormChouinard

        Benedict XVI writes “Men and women with homosexual tendencies ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.” Here he is reiterating John Paul II and the Catholic Catechism almost word for word. Francis reminds us on this matter that God’s redeeming love is primary in our discussions and evangelization. I hope you can clarify where the Catholic tone is in this piece.

        • Paul

          You need to distinguish the sin from the sinner. Although we all need to be compassionate to homosexuals since they are sinners just like everyone else, this does NOT excuse the sin. Moreover, homosexuals are often unrepentant about their sexuality instead they want to politicize & normalize their sin so to make it acceptable.

          • NormChouinard

            Exactly!

          • CadaveraVeroInnumero

            Correct, politicized homosexuals do not want our compassion. Not at all interested.

            Most of the commentators have not, I assume, been in “the life”. To them (to you) it is difficult to wrap one’s mind around the notion of how uninterested they are in our respectful opinion of our shared human dignify with them. They (the “gays”) have harvested great victories – even after this book received its final edit and sent to press. In fact, the marriage thing is yesterday’s news; they are eye-balling other goals – such as the elimination of age-of-consent laws and the criminalization of any statement or public position against homosexuality (and any other sexual “identity”).

            If the upcoming Synod on the Family does not give them what they want, they will demand gallons of blood. They will demand that the Church bleed itself dry. You see, the Left thinks it will defeat the Catholic Church; to them it is simply an NGO operation (a mustering of a battalion of well-funded non-profits). In the end – with enough Catholic faithful becoming unfaithful – victory is guaranteed.

            But, there is one hoary obstacle – Russia. Russia has been the only culture and state which has dared to challenge the Gay Agenda -and battle the Left on fields that count. That is why – in spite of George Weigel’s investment in the crisis of Ukraine (he assuming the conflict there is a Catholic one) – the Left has thrown the whole Modern Project in the conflict, especially the issue of homosexuality. If Russia is seen to have won then so will it’s culture be seen as gaining reclamation over moral ground laid to waste by the Culture of Death. (It will be ironic if the Russian Orthodox come to the aid of John Paul’s great call while the Catholic faithful pretzel-twist their sensitivities of compassion into every fashionable shape to fit every perverted claim upon God’s mercy.)

            For the Left Russia dare not win this war. The Left has staked its all. Did they not place on Obama’s infamous list of proscribed Russians the parliamentarian leader who introduced the legislation restricting homosexual propaganda to Russia’s children – a Duma member who had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea?

            Back to the parade of homosexuality marching goosestep like past our doors.

            I do not see this resolving without the much lamented absent fathers doing battle in the streets. Frankly, I don’t see that happening – even as they come for our 12-year olds.

            Talk of all the Franciscan mercies and compassion you want – they are (currently) the victors; they are mocking you.

            • Susan Montgomery

              So, all the KGB needed to gain your approval was to hate gays? Since they did so all along, why did you ever oppose the Soviets? Maybe because they didn’t give the special privileges that the Church wanted?

              As far as Christian love and compassion? Well, let’s put it this way – I hear a lot of whining about how liberals never say anything bad about muslims. But it’s not because anyone likes them more but because they are honest. Osama bin Laden didn’t call 9/11 an act of love and compassion for the poor infidels. And yet, Christians couch their demands for special government favors and the use of government force in the service of their doctrines as “love”.

              • Austin Ruse

                I have no idea what your point is!!not remotely. Read it three times.

                • Susan Montgomery

                  I’m not surprised. Speaking of reading, why not take a gander at the history books (the ones that you want to burn, that is) and read up on the mass graves, burning stakes and torture chambers where people learned about christian compassion. The Soviets and Nazis were children in comparison to the bloodshed and sheer sadism conducted by the church.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Ooooooh……..OK……….

                    • Susan Montgomery

                      😉 I know you’re obligated to deny it but the fingerprints left by the bloody hands of holy men of Jesus tell an undeniable truth. Which is why no one sane wants your “compassion” or “love”.

                    • Interested

                      Only the feeble minded and corrupt believe this propaganda.

                    • Susan Montgomery

                      No, only those who look at the world with honesty and integrity believe it. Only the dishonest deny the church’s lust for blood and power.

                    • Interested

                      If you only have a third grade knowledge of history from the History channel you believe such a fiction.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      I would encourage you to go off the reservation, do the wild thing, and read the Gospels.

                    • Susan Montgomery

                      LOL! Maybe christians should too.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      We are all people, Susan — all of us are in the same boat — good Christians, bad Christians, good people, bad people. What we all seek can only come from within each and every individual human heart. We cannot enforce our love — some reject the love of God and neighbor, including professed Christians. But we don’t have to do that — we can learn to respect one another and live in harmony — and break the wheel of karma with Divine Mercy.

                    • Susan Montgomery

                      I would love to believe that but the christians who want to murder and assault with impunity – with the sanction or power of the state behind them vastly outnumber you. Punish a god-fearing christian for killing a gay man? Gayification! Oppression! Homofascists!

                      And maybe it’s just guilt and fear that drives christian hate. Christians have for so long demonstrated how to murder and oppress and they’re afraid that they’ve taught their lessons too well, But I would strive to be better than christians and show fellowship and respect and not define those terms as automatic agreement.

                    • Interested

                      The gay propagandist returns. Do you believe your own hate? Why such a closed mind?

                    • Susan Montgomery

                      An advocate of a philosophy built on racism, slavery and genocide (you see, I *have* read the bible) is saying I’ve got a closed mind?

                    • Art Deco

                      And a vulgar one too.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      We only truly have power over ourselves, and even that takes the cultivation of the virtue of self-control along with humility and all the other virtues. So it really doesn’t matter how critical we are about this or that categorization of people, except to make sure we ourselves don’t exhibit the same behavior we are decrying. Love your neighbor, even if your neighbor hates you. And sometimes that love means bringing the smack down! Like the time I stopped a horribly spoiled and bratty five-year-old from chucking a cue ball onto the head of a two-year-old. I straightened that kid out and made him cry. Five minutes later I had him on the pool table showing the others how to roll the balls within the confines of the rules I laid down. The five-year-old became a better person, and achieved a greater degree of freedom and trust in the process.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Ahhh…here comes the tolerance, love, compassion of the secular left. Right.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    One has little doubt that Susan Montgomery would be the first to push Christian families into the gas chamber.

                    • Susan Montgomery

                      I’m not a christian therefore I do not want to murder those who disagree with me. If you wish your superstitions and fairy tales you’re welcome to keep them without interference so long as you don’t interfere with others who don’t buy them. I’d ask why this is so hard fro christians to understand but history shows that the only appreciable difference between christians and the taliban is the brand names.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh your knickers are in a twist! and if we do “interfere” (whatever that means) to the gulag? The gas chamber? Maoist death camps? Khmer Rouge reeducation camps? Perhaps another secular lesson of your own devising? When will you understand that your ideology has killed hundreds of millions and has utterly failed?

                    • Susan Montgomery

                      “hundreds of millions”? You’re kidding right? Seriously, I know the history of communism (an ideology which I deplore in the most passionate terms) but secularists have a long way to go to match the christian body count.

                      Interference is best described as the initiation of force. If attacked physically anyone has a right to defend themselves. Call whatever names you like, preach your hate but do not initiate force. Can you handle that? 🙂

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The body count of the secularists is exponentially larger than anything committed by or in the name of the Church. Sorry, sister. Facts if facts. Even in our own country, the body count is 50 million and counting.

                    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

                      How – but mostly why – do non-Christians such as Susan spend the coinage of their time on trolling through articles on Crisis?

                      Welcome, but really . . . I mean, how do they get here?

                    • Art Deco

                      I suspect the sorosphere’s first and second string are busy, so they send the third string. A while back it was a shrew from Omaha… That AC-DC lawyer must be working this weekend.

                  • Interested

                    More propaganda from the gay fascists.

        • cestusdei

          Norm, is it that what you really want is for the Church to be silent on this particular moral issue?

          • NormChouinard

            Certainly not. We need to be bold and provacative, but in the ways of our Lord rather than in the ways of the world.

            • cestusdei

              I seem to remember our Lord on occasion overturning some tables and braiding a whip.He never held back from teaching the truth. Nor should we.

              • Patricksday

                Too bad the Bishops are not doing that with Corporate America, who are destroying more families with Greed and Bloated Salaries then the Gay Community could ever do. But they know who butters their bread, those expensive gowns cost money.

                • Art Deco

                  I see you have a taste for non sequiturs as well.

                  • MarkRutledge

                    We see often in public discourse, and herein, the charge that Christians (or The Right as proxy) are hateful towards homosexuals. This is usually followed by demonstration of that alleged hatred, which is nothing more than disagreement and opposition to their cause. There are, and alas always will be, those who harber genuine hatred towards others, and they should not be granted credibility. But to conflate their hatred with the authentic, sincere, good-natured opposition of Christians is dishonest to the core.

        • Interested

          What in this piece contradicts your quote?

    • I see both as being quite compatible with one another.

      The assumptions in the article, are required to understand the video.

      • NormChouinard

        Perhaps but I would quibble that the assumptions of the video are needed to correctly sort out the political ends of the article. First things first.

        • The article is about theological beginnings, not political ends. The political ends in both the article and the video would be exactly the same: Support for a heteronormative married and family life, supported by Christ.

          That’s what I got out of that video, not support for the disordered mental illness, but support for actual, real authentic relationships.

          Which is what we should *ALL* want as Catholics. None of this fake gay marriage stuff for us, none of this sex without intimacy that is so common among the promiscuous.

          Good Aristotelian Telos and natural law, not made up demonic garbage from the French Revolution.

          • NormChouinard

            Friend, the Chuch makes every effort to distinguish between SSA and behavoir. We welcome SSA brothers and sisters with compassion and Christ’s love. That must come first. I don’t see a need to reclarify that again after this post. You are welcome to the last word.

            • The piece, as it is, exemplifies the concept of distinguishing between the illness of SSA and the acts of SSA.

              Unless we can admit that SSA is indeed disordered even as a temptation, then there is little hope in correcting that disorder. Far too many, as it says in your video, would rather lie to the same sex attracted, and tell them there is nothing to fear from the temptation- that acts resulting from the temptation aren’t sinful.

          • fredx2

            The video shows the deep truths about happiness and why they are completely unaddressed by current gay activism.

            • And in fact, can’t. It’s a myth that marriage is primarily about happiness.

    • Austin Ruse

      I am pretty glad you are not the Pope…

    • fredx2

      I’ve seen this video and it is remarkable. There really is a third way in all of this where everybody wins.

  • publiusnj

    Any article on the Gaying of America that doesn’s home in on the question of how DOMA got passed by an almost unanimous Congress in 1996 but was nevertheless overturned by the Supreme Court in a bizarre set of rulings in 2013 is missing the key turning point. Those two Supreme Court decisions are when the Gaying of America was imposed by the Elitists on the Public despite overwhelming support for Traditional Marriage as evidenced in 32 referenda all of which had gone against Gay Marriage. DOMA was supposedly unlawful because Marriage was an issue for the states, but the California State Referendum on Gay Marriage could be disregarded on the grounds that the state political office holders waere willing to disregard the People’s Will. The most disgusting part of that ruling was that Antonin ScaliA WENT ALONG

    • Austin Ruse

      it’s in there.

      • publiusnj

        I read the article through three times but am still missing the discussion of either DOMA or the 2013 Shell Game Decisions. And I hope that we get to a discussion of DOMA and the 32 referenda as a clear statement of where the country was at for most of the past 20 years a whole lot sooner than 100 years from now.

        Despite Rousseau, Kameny or the revisions in the DSM, the Congress of the United States in 1996 overwhelmingly passed DOMA in the wake of the American public’s anger over Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy and the people of the US went to the polls repeatedly to strike down Gay Marriage as recently as 2011. Yet instead of looking into the Elite’s thwarting of the Public Will, this article drifts off into the influence of Jean Jacques Rousseau on Frank Kameny and a 1970s revision of the DSM, as well as on the music of John Cage. Seems a bit far afield to have any practical effect on the public debate; although I have a great deal of respect for History and Philosophy, most people would fall asleep long before understanding who Jean Jacques Rousseau was..

        • Austin Ruse

          Good grief. Its in the BOOK,that the article is writing about.

        • CadaveraVeroInnumero

          Sorry. Rousseau savors the very air we breathe, he is woven among the threads of our bedsheets. The man is so much there, maybe that is why we no longer see – or care. We have become his abandoned children; we don’t know how to call him father.

          • publiusnj

            Rousseau “wafts” in with the air we breathe? And that has somethng to do with the Gaying of America? Actually, what you are smelling probably is Starbucks Coffee. Starbucks right now is running a Mothers’ Day commercial (today is M’s Day) that lists various types of moms. The last mom listed with an “appropriate” picture is: “the two moms are better than one mom” and the picture is of two women looking at one another with adoring glances and a baby in the middle. As I said, whatever Rousseau’s sub rosa effect on the long-term culture, the changes are happening right now at a clip that would have been unthinkable five years ago. We ought to be looking at present-day political actors rather than 300 year old “philosophical causes.” The causes didn’t prevent all those 21st Century referenda results or overwhelming Democrat support for DOMA less than 20 years ago.

    • Vinnie

      The Massachusetts legislature prevented the people from voting on a referendum on homosexual marriage after the Supreme Judicial Court (MA) approved it by one vote. Our “representatives” voted to block the referendum from being presented at the ballot box.

      • publiusnj

        You are exactly right in focusing on our overlords. The culprits are not J.J. Rousseau or the writers of the revised DSM but the politicians–elected and appointed–who figured out that they could “stonewall” the public will and shove a totally unwanted revision of the culture down our throats in the name of liberty. In their new version of History, the boys who fought on the Beaches of Normandy didn’t do so to protect the American Way of Life (which rested on Christian principles) but so that they could make love to the boy in the next foxhole and so their girlfriends (if they were so inclined) could kill any children conceived of their sexual unions.

    • fredx2

      A couple of years ago, the Atlantic Magazine had an article about how a few gay billionaires were planning a political campaign to get gay marriage passed across the country. Their strategy was to focus on state legislatures. They found that buying state legislators was relatively easy and cheap – about $10,000 was enough of a contribution to elect a state legislator in any district they wanted. This is because people generally don’t know their state legislators, and they end up voting for whoever has the most lawn signs. And lawn signs are relatively cheap, at least to billionaires. To swing a state legislature, they might have to swing as few as 5 or maybe 20 legislators, that’s all.
      So these legislatures that are suddenly doing big switches and passing gay marriage laws after having been reliably anti-gay marriage may simply be responding to a targeted infusion of money in their state. Some people believe this is what happened in Minnesota, which first elected a state legislature that passed a gay marriage ban, then turned around in 2012 and passed a gay marriage law. Before the election no one thought the legislature was in any danger of switching majority parties. But poof – there we are.

      • guest

        You’re wrong about Minnesota. The people revolted and voted for gay marriage after the conservatives went too far and tried to amend the state constitution.

        • Interested

          No, the libs like deviance.

    • redfish

      I think the biggest casualty of the culture war is turning out to be conservative jurisprudence. The older generation of libertarians tended to be conservative judicially. The newer generation tends to support a kind of ‘libertarian activist’ approach, where activism is okay whenever its in a libertarian direction.

      • TheAbaum

        Anybody watching the political finagling of Rand Paul knows that despite all the cries of libertarians that they will stay true to their principles, they are the same willows in the wind as any other politician.

        • redfish

          Ron Paul acted like a hypocrite throughout his last campaign — ie, talking about how all of his opponents were career politicians after having spent so many years on office, saying other candidates hated Muslims and gays while acting offended that people would call him anti-Semitic for his positions on Israel, and so on. His whole campaign became a slash-and-burn effort. It made me cringe whenever anyone called him principled after that.

          • TheAbaum

            It’s a cult of personality with the Pauls.

            Once the pigs take over Manor Farm and start living in the farmhouse, they start wearing the farmer’s clothes, drinking his booze and cutting deals.

            I think if the proper surfactant were applied the obsession with Israel would reveal a darker stain.

    • Rock St. Elvis

      Actually, standing is not an “arcane” principle at all, which is how the elites of California knew that they could thwart the will of the people by standing mute.

      • publiusnj

        I won’t argue with you over the term “arcane” but the CA Supreme Court had ruled that proponents of the initiative could represent the State’s interest despite the politicians’ refusal to do so and even the ultra-liberal 9th Circuit had said the proponents could defend the proposition, but the federal Supreme Court denied them that state-defined right on the grounds that the CA Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit were both wrong, based on a grafting of the Law of Agency onto principles of Standing.

        The end result is that even though the Court had just said that states control the marriage issue so it could strike down DOMA, they then went on to ignore the CA Proposition’s result, not on any constitutional analysis but on a technical standing/agency principle that enabled the court to side-step an express finding by the highest court in the State of CA. Even though CA’s Supreme Court had held that the proponents of the Proposition had the authority (or standing) to defend the Proposition, which had been passed under the CA Constitution on a matter (Marriage) that the Supreme Court had just said was a state matter, the feds chose to allow the politicians in CA to have the last say even though it thwarted the People’s Will. So, an almost unanimous Federal Congress had no authority to say anything on marriage because of states’ rights, but a divided Supreme Court could overrule the clear Voice of the People of California on the issue of marriage. Not arcane perhaps but slimy stuff.

  • Steven Jonathan

    Frank Kameny’s feeling about whether or not we see homosexual acts as a sickness being the pillar on which the homophile movement will stand or fall is inaccurate- it goes deeper to telos- at root, when the purpose of sex is subverted from its true ends it really does become about the “possibilities.” Homosexual acts are only a subset of the “possibilities.” A deeper issue and so the cement of all this madness is the contraceptive mentality, the hub for all the new possibilities, the Lambeth conference of 1930 was more important than the ridiculous DSM. Seeing homosexual acts as “healthy” is a fruit from the tree no purpose.

  • Ford Oxaal

    Overall, the strongest of human bonds is that of family — blood. The “social contract” is, therefore, between families, ‘modern philosophers’ notwithstanding. The attempt to redefine society as a ridiculous contract between ‘sex partners’ will end badly precisely because these are the most artificial of human bonds, and more often than not, simply mask a deep loathing of neighbor.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    The word is “bombshell”, as in “The book is a . . .” Yet, it has yet to explode.

    My question: Will “New Homophilism” be considered collateral damage when hit?

  • Pingback: the gaying of america | the Anglo-Sinkie scribbles()

  • cestusdei

    I just got the book and look forward to reading it.

  • A Guest

    When will a Christian leader talk about the removal of the father from the family? This is the crux of everything yet it is conspicuously absent from almost every discussion on “how we got here”. In order to realize Rousseau’s position of making children wards of the state fathers had to be rendered unnecessary, yet no one makes the connection.

    The path to the children starts with removing the father. The state cannot impose its will without first eroding the family, and to do that, removal of fathers was necessary. By putting the state in charge of the children, fathers are effectively denied their rightful place as head of the household; fathers then become ever more superfluous and more easily removed until most people run on the belief that a child doesn’t need a father present at all. With the state effectively raising the children and the mother effectively babysitting on evenings and weekends, it appears the child’s needs are being met and he is easily indoctrinated without a real leader in the home.

    Once you remove the head of the household, something else has to fill the vacuum, hence the state having the space to step into the role as head of the family and then the current situation in which children are indoctrinated by perverts within the state rather than being educated within the properly ordered home. A father and mother united provides a bulwark against state intrusion.

    • Austin Ruse

      If you don’t think that fatherlessness is part of the discussion, then you really have missed the discussion. It is central and discussed all the time..

      • A Guest

        Yes, it is discussed in the sense of the “bad man abandoning his family” meme but that is not the truth. More often than not it is women frivolously divorcing their husbands. I see a lot of people dancing around it and refusing to hold women accountable lest the women get an acute case of feelbad.

        Moreover, I was not talking about mere fatherlessness but about how there was a plan to remove fathers from the family to accomplish the luciferian goal of subverting God’s design.

        Most Christians talk about fatherlessness and imply that it is men abandoning their families, but the system actively and aggressively acts to accomplish this while encouraging, supporting and believing whatever women say and award her with cash, prizes and primary custody of the children while using the power of the state to turn the father into a slave, as they extract financial support from him while restricting his time with his children.

        But I know, that would never happen to you because you’re a nice guy. Those other men must have done something terrible to have wound up divorced and alienated from their children. Amirite?

        • Austin Ruse

          Is there some kind of evidence that a preponderance of divorce cases resulted from the woman’s initiatives?

          • Sherry M.

            In “The Politics of Family Destruction”, Stephen Baskerville refers to studies that estimate that, in the U.S., between 67 and 75% of divorces where children are involved are instigated by the mother.

            In a “Telegraph” article, it says that, according to the Office of National Statistics (in the UK), women initiated the divorce in 66% percent of the cases.

            • Austin Ruse

              Can you cite these studies?

              • A Guest

                Perhaps you should do a bit more research before assuming it’s a “bad man” that usually causes a divorce. The statistics are not that hard to find, but you’re going to have to stop thinking of women as near-perfect creatures who “had to” divorce. Currently women are given a lot of power via the family courts and playing the victim while the Church tends to support the woman (with her victim act) and vilify the man.

                This is not something you will be able to learn about over night and it will require a change in the way you see things – that is, you will have to take off the blinders and prepare not to be liked if you wish to know the truth and to defend the truth. Until then, you will be complicit in the destruction of the family.

                We are replaying Genesis 3. Remember Satan tempted Eve and thus sin entered the world. Now Satan (and the state) are whispering in women’s ears that divorce is the answer.

                Can you cite the studies that refute the statement that the majority of divorces are initiated by women?

                • Austin Ruse

                  You should resist assuming what I believe. Now, I’m interested. But please cite your studies.

                  • A Guest

                    It is not for me to advise a man of your position in the field of your expertise. You can choose either to seek truth or to posture. It is better to seek the cause than to look for the cure.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Trying to seek the truth here. You space Made assertions, that most divorces initiated by women, and I’m asking you good faith to back that up.

                    • A Guest

                      It is good that you are interested in facts, but I am interested in why you don’t know these facts given your area of your expertise. You seem unaware; do you typically operate this way?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You know, this is profoundly snarky and I am not going to respond except to say you should mind your manners.

                    • A Guest

                      It wasn’t meant to be snarky, it just seems strange that you wouldn’t know that women initiate the majority of divorces in the English speaking world.

                      It is also curious that you would spend two days attempting to have strangers spoon feed you information when you could find it for yourself – or at least get a start on it – in a few minutes. If I’m curious about the veracity of something someone said, I at least start with a quick Internet search and dig deeper from there if I think it warrants a closer look.

                      Do you have any studies that refute what I have said? If I am wrong I’d sure like to know; do you want to find out if you are wrong?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      It is funny that you want to convince me of something and you think the way to do it is through insult. Weird.

                    • A Guest

                      Who said I want to convince you of something? If you find it interesting, you are free to look into it. If not, then don’t. But you seem to be invested in discrediting me now, even if only in as far as it puts your own mind at ease, which tells me you don’t like the implications of what I have said and are merely posturing.

                      In your attempted refutation of the citation Sherry M. brought up, you admit that women have always filed the majority of divorces and then attempt to shift the goalposts by asking a side question that is obviously designed to muddy the water and cause the discussion to drift into irrelevancies. Radical feminism has opened the door to a huge increase in the divorce rate, largely because there are no longer the restrictions on women that there once were. You are either being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous here, or…

                      I’m sorry if you are insulted by this, but if you value the Truth above pretty lies, you will put your feelings aside and work for that rather than worrying about being “insulted”.

                    • Thomas

                      This is quite a debate. I’m following it because as a divorced dad, I know quite well about it.
                      I don’t have studies to cite, but I agree with Baskerville about what he calls The Divorce Regime. Compared to you folks, I admit to being less “educated;” but I saw how the system uses the deep pockets of men to feed and sustain itself. I stopped the government, but it cost me a bit of money and a tough, smart lawyer.
                      The Dept. of Child Support Services is a rouge threat to individual liberty. The men and women who work for the state are borderline criminals who have vast powers to seize property without due process. This is enshrined in law.
                      How did this development come about?
                      Begin with the stupidity of us men, who often think with the small head rather than the big one. That wasn’t me, but many men, themselves victims of the sexual revolution, impregnate women through casual sex, and bring children into the world. The government reacts by demanding them to “pay for playing.” We all understand that.
                      Personally, my marriage ended because my wife viewed our marriage like a “starter marriage.” For her, she would discover the third time was the charm. I don’t have empirical data to state this, only discussions with a few other men, but we all have a similar story. We wonder what women today are thinking. I can only recall Fulton Sheen’s quote, to the effect, that a civilization’s strength is founded on the virtue and character of its women.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I do not argue with the terrible slant divorce courts put in favor of women. But that does not change the fact that going back more than 100 years, women have always overwhelmingly initiated divorce.

                    • Thomas

                      I will accept that women mostly are the initiators.
                      Without evidence to back this up, I will take the liberty to speculate that the divorce rates drastically increased after 1969 when California passed the Family Law Act and created the first (?) No Fault Divorce law.
                      I sat in a room with a lawyer who helped people fill out their forms with the DCSS agency, and I did not speak kindly to the law.
                      He responded by saying the state took over the DA’s job as a debt collector and that NFD was needed because both parties in a divorce usually lied, often hiring a person claiming to be the “mistress,” in order to get a divorce judgment.
                      While he looked at it pragmatically, I didn’t.

                    • Sherry M.

                      In addition to Baskerville’s book, there are two excellent books by David Kupelian: “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”, and “How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America”.

                      These books present a well-researched analysis of how we have gotten to where we are in terms of a “Culture of Death” – and why we are in “The Gaying of America”.

                      One of the other best resources I know is Gabriele Kuby, a German sociologist who writes on the “transgender agenda”. There was an excellent article in Catholic World Report.

                    • Thomas

                      Thanks for the references on evil, and what a coincidence! This morning, I was reading two chapters by James V. Schall in his book, Another Sort of Learning. One chapter was on Evil and the Responsibility for Suffering, followed by the next chapter on The Coercive Utopians and the Obscure Heart of Ideology. It sounds like the books you’ve mentioned are along the same lines.
                      Thank you.

                    • Holy smokes

                      A hundred years is nothing, especially in a liberal protestant culture. Now, in 1450, I would find that statistic strange.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You want to convince me of something. Otherwise what is the point of this ridiculous exercise. You want to convince me 1) that women overwhelmingly initiative divorces. I am convinced. and 2) that this is the result of radical feminism and the general devaluation of fathers by society. Given that women have always overwhelmingly initiated divorce, I am not sure your second argument holds up.

                      The rest of your note is just silly. I am not insulted. I do this for a living. Obviously you don’t. Otherwise you would not get so emotional.

                    • A Guest

                      You said I was being “insulting”, and now you accuse me of being emotional. Nice try but really, this is weak. Do you agree or disagree that there has been a concerted effort to remove fathers from the lives of their children so that the state can take the place of the father? Do you agree or disagree that feminism has helped at least in part to make this possible on a large scale, since there are far far more divorces now than there were pre-feminism, even if women have historically been the initiators? (Recall that I didn’t bring up feminism, but since it has been added, let’s deal with that too).

                      Did so many women divorce before feminism? It seems that women are being played (as the serpent tempted Eve in the garden) to subvert the family. First you wanted to be shown that women file for the majority of divorces and now you state that women have always overwhelmingly initiated divorce. If you knew that why did you put up hoops for me to jump through to demonstrate to you what you already firmly believed?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Actually, i said you were trying to accomplish something through insult. Believe me, you do not have the capability to make me FEEL insulted. Do you understand the difference?

                    • A Guest

                      It is a personal decision to FEEL whatever you like. I have noticed that women and emotional men use the phrase “make me feel”. Now it would be good to get back to the matter at hand.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      no thanks..

                    • A Guest

                      I see your addition to your comment. Fair enough. I hope you will dig deeper and look into it. Thomas’s story below is not uncommon and is really a classic frivolous divorce initiated by a woman. As with just about everything that’s wrong with the world, follow the money!

                    • Austin Ruse

                      We do not disagree on anything. That’s what you don’t get.

                    • A Guest

                      How do you presume to know what I think? This is not a matter of disagreement, merely a exercise in going deeper in thinking and seeing a bigger picture.

                      You said I didn’t know that it has always been women that have predominately initiated divorce, but I cited Genesis 3 and made the point that Satan always tempts the women and thus destruction flows through the women. Since I never said it was not always so, it should be assumed that my reference to Genesis 3 demonstrates that throughout the ages it has always been this way.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh brother. Take conciliation sister!

                    • A Guest

                      Why are you seeing this as a win-lose proposition? For those that seek truth, there is only winning. It doesn’t have to be an even exchange (I’ve found that to be rare anyway) and I’m not trying to ‘beat’ you but only to put some knowledge out there than few seem to have – or at least, that few seem to want to talk about.

                      But I too am tiring of this. The combox tends to engender more animosity and contentiousness than is necessary since it can be hard to read for tone, but I have not been trying to insult anyone. There is no ‘nice’ way to say some things and the truth can be unpleasant given its implications in our own lives.

                      I appreciate your having engaged with me on this important topic.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You have been remarkably unpleasant. I am sorry I engaged with you.

                    • A Guest

                      Yes, I am not nice. If one tells unwelcome truths, one will not be liked. It will ruffle feathers.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2ugh_DuYMM

                    • Austin Ruse

                      It is also kind of hilarious and egotistical of you to suggest you are telling “unwelcome truths.” You aren’t. You are just being unpleasant. You do not attract. You repel.

                      One of the geniuses of men is the ability to tussle and walk away friendly. The fact that you would not take the olive branch tells me you are not XX. Alas.

                    • A Guest

                      Not really. Men walk away angry and pissed off. The following day they will still work together and a few days after that the tussle is forgotten.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Yes, and women drag it on and on and on and never forget. At least in this regard, men are far superior.

                    • A Guest

                      Austin, you are reacting and projecting. Learn some frame control and read Sun Tzu. Then take time to think before you comment. At least watch the video and see if there is something you can learn from it. But I agree that a masculine man is superior to a woman or an emasculated man.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I am simply pointing out that you are a woman and are not willing to accept conciliation, and more infected by radical feminism than you would likely want to admit. I am not sure what we disagree on, even that you are unpleasant.

                      Here’s the thing. If you want to convince someone of your position, which you oddly claim you do not want to do, weird, or to accept your facts, the quickest way not to do that is to be an ass, which you are abundantly being.

                      What’s more, you are a coward to boot!

                      You consider yourself a fearless truth teller yet you remain anonymous. Why?

                    • A Guest

                      Austin, you are reacting emotionally. Get a grip! I thanked you for being willing to engage with me and you came back saying you wished you hadn’t and calling me unpleasant. It seems you are the one unwilling to take an olive branch, and now you resort to more insult, which is what you accused me of doing. Do you always insist on having the last word in an argument? Are you always this unwilling to shake hands and leave it be?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Dear, you cannot get the upper hand. Stop trying.

                    • A Gues

                      Dear Austin: Giggle giggle, you are such a man!

                    • Austin Ruse

                      First halfway decent thing you’ve said.

                    • A Guest

                      Did you watch the Ann Barnhardt YouTube video on being ‘nice’?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      No. There is immense ground between “being nice” and being a jerk.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      First halfway human thing, anyway.

                    • A Guest

                      Austin, I can see that you are editing your responses. If you took the time to think first and comment second, you would not be so reactive and then need to change your words.

                    • Art Deco

                      Learn some frame control

                      Mr. Dalrock’s terminology makes its appearance.

                    • A Guest

                      Pretty sure that was Roissy or some other PUA type.

                    • Thomas

                      It gets stranger, Guest.
                      My kids are almost all grown, so I decided to talk to a Deacon about an annulment. He said the state holds workshop training to try to keep people from divorcing.
                      On the one hand, state legislators make divorce easy; on the other hand, they see a problem and are looking for a remedy.
                      The state is reactive, but I agree with you in that the state as an assembly of legislators and bureaucrats, have been largely controlled by the Feminist Lobby. No doubt about that.
                      So, have I missed something? Why are you grilling Austin on this?

                    • A Guest

                      I care about families and children. Thus the reality of the truth should be talked about. State governments pretend to want to keep people from divorcing but the federal government bestows matching grants of money for each dollar transfered from a divorced man to the mother of his children through child support. Everyone has a financial motivation to promote divorce. No wonder women file so many divorces since no one talks about this and men are withdrawing from the battle for truth.

                      I started off saying that Christian leaders (as Mr Ruse is the president of a Catholic organization) need to speak up about this issue in terms of the deliberate effort to remove fathers from the home and he has been trying to refute me with various methods throughout this discussion. For some reason he says he is uninterested in further exchange, although something is clearly bothering him. My hope is simply that when the dust settles he decides to look into it further. There is more to this than “bad men”, which he has discovered here today at least.

                    • Thomas

                      I didn’t know about the federal matching funds. That explains a lot. I consider S. Baskerville to be the pre-eminent source on this subject.
                      Has Austin ever laid divorce on the shoulders of “bad men?” I ask because I don’t know.
                      I don’t mind telling my story, but to make a case against a whole class, women, based on Genesis 3, might be a little risky. As I pointed out, men share the blame for casual sex, which causes the state to react by digging for money. Unfortunately, rare is the case where the woman pays the man. By default, he loses since rarely will he gain custody.
                      I go back to Sheen’s comment on the importance of virtuous women being the bedrock of civilization. Someone once said, “Men are the gas; women are the brakes.” The second part isn’t so evident today, and the first part is still true.
                      Like you, I am concerned about the separation of fathers from the family.

                    • Thomas

                      She wouldn’t stop the affair while we were married with three very young kids. She wanted to get #2 lined up while we were married. He had lots of money.
                      I, then, initiated the divorce.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I have looked at the study you cited. Are you aware that going back to the 19th century that women have overwhelmingly been the ones to initiate divorce? 62% in 1867. Were those women radical feminists influenced by the campaign to devalue fathers and benefiting from a friendly court system? Or not?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Still waiting for an answer to my comment below..perhaps you were not aware that women have always overwhelmingly initiated divorce. That fact does not fit into your neat theory now does it?

              • Sherry M.

                Stephen Baskerville, author of “Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family” has had several articles in Crisis Magazine over the past few years.

                In “The Politics of Family Destruction” (Crisis, May 4, 2010), he refers to the study by Margaret F. Briner, College of Law, University of Iowa, and Douglas W. Allen, Department of Economics, College of Simon Fraser University. The study was called “These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women”.

                Another study he references is that of Sanford L. Braver which was the largest-ever study on issues confronting divorced fathers. It was an eight year study involving 1000 divorcing couples.

                Radical feminism, combined with “No Fault Divorce” have both been responsible for so much harm that never should have been. Many men have been wrongly hurt by this situation – as have the children involved – heart-breakingly so.

                God made children to have a mother and a father for many good reasons. Each brings something different and essential to the marriage. Each has unique gifts, skills, and limitations.

                The media encourages the “quick fix” to life problems, rather than working through together and growing as a result of the challenges. Today it seems that a number of women see men as a hindrance to their pleasure. What a shame!

                • Austin Ruse

                  Are you aware that the first study you cite shows that going back to 1867 women have always been the instigator of divorce…between 62 and 72% from 1867 to 1995? Were they radical feminists in 1867?

                  • AndoverAndy

                    Alva Erskine Vanderbilt certainly was. She was born in 1853 and when she divorced Willie K Vanderbilt in 1895 spent much of her time organizing women’s meetings to support abortion and the women’s right to vote. She lived until 1933 when she died at the age of 80. She is just one example of a wealthy woman that devoted herself to this. Of course as radical as she was, she still forced her daughter to marry the 9th Duke of Marlboro in a loveless marriage because most of all she was a social climbing hag. Sin is always the same it has always been around but each generation thinks they are the radical new discoverers of something different, that is part of the lasting allure, it appeals to pride that YOU will change the world! lol

    • Rtort

      Brilliantly said. Remember JPII when he said that we are becoming a ‘fatherless generation’ how right he was. Men remember again your role and dignity as Father, husband, head and take back your control of the family by being responsible again.

    • TheAbaum

      “The path to the children starts with removing the father.”

      And that is now nearly complete. It started fifty years or so ago, and it was engineered.

  • GUNNER

    Same sex marriage = deviant marrying deviant thus an abomination against all that is moral and ethical.

  • thebigdog

    Sometime during the 20th century, “happiness” replaced “God’s will” as the highest motivation. From that point, we have been on a slippery slope which glorifies selfishness, enables dysfunction and uses rhetoric to play verbal shell games to the point that intolerant cultural Marxists are continuously claiming victim status.

    Homosexuality is, always has been and always will be intrinsically disordered and for those who like to say “hate the sin but love the sinner” — please understand that when Satan works through people, they understand that where you are trying to project kindness, they are inferring weakness… this applies to alcohol, drugs, gambling etc. as well.

    One of the consequences of pursuing happiness rather than the will of God is that appearing to be “nice” in the eyes of fellow human beings has become more important than striving to be “good” in the eyes of God. Sacrifice has NOT become passe’ and the elevation of happiness as an idol has caused many to completely disregard the redemptive value of suffering.

    Let’s hope that Pope Francis will be responsible and follow up his “who am I to judge” comment (after all, the media have decided that this kindness reflects weakness and the Church is finally changing its position) with a bold straightforward clarification that it is God who judges ALL of us and the sin of homosexuality will not get a free pass.

  • Pingback: The Gaying of America | Catholic Canada()

  • clintoncps

    A great article!

    In a materialist sense, I think what happened to produce this precipitous decline in sexual morality was the coming of artificial reproductive technologies, which unleashed pent up sexual urges from the confines of worries about unwanted pregnancy starting largely through The Pill and continuing with things like artificial insemination, sexual reassignment surgery, and cloning, all of which are taking on increasingly mixed-up and threatening manifestation in our own day.

    From a sociological perspective, I would say the sexual revolution of the 1960s covered the world in a torrent of pornographic imagery in every form of media, progressing rapidly like so many addictions to more outlandish and deranged forms. Sex is pleasurable, so using it as a drug is profitable but also traumatic — jack-hammer-like, the pornographic assault on our senses only continues to pummel us into submission and bewilderment, and we don not know how to defend ourselves from it.

    Most important, though, is the spiritual dimension. For the powers that be in society, God essentially does not exist. There is only the will to power, and in such a situation of hubris, God has got to go. And so, He has let us go our own way, like the prodigal son, and our disintegration and furious abuse of ourselves and others continues to spiral. In fact, the images, costumes, and personas that are sold to us more and more resemble something not only beastial, nor even merely monstrous, but actually demonic. Without God, man goes insane; without God, ‘man’ does not exist.

    Pray to Jesus that He will send the Holy Spirit to sustain us in this tribulation and give us the love and courage to become more than conquerors, even where Satan’s seat is.

    Peace be with you!

    In Christ and the Holy Family,

    Clinton

  • Guest

    Great book review. Especially enjoyed the details about the APA and the reclassification of homosexuality–the abrupt change makes much more sense now. Also indicates that the change was fueled by sentimentality much as the gaying of America is now: People will sidestep objectivity because they don’t want to appear “mean.” Very unAmerican. Gay lobby knows this and use it their advantage.

    I enjoyed hearing the moving accounts of folks in the video on the Church’s teachings on homosexuality–these were not sentimental in the least and depict their own special beauty. It was inspiring to hear their stories of their journey ad Fontes. (I was slightly confused about title Third Way, though–thought there was only One, i.e., I am the Way, the Truth, the Life . . .)

  • Pamela

    We are the frog in the pot of water over the flame. It’s reached the boiling point without our ever realizing it. And we have become so accustomed to the heat, we won’t even attempt to escape it before it boils us to death.

  • Ted K

    “Rousseau’s ideas have been circulating for 200 years. How is it they
    have all of a sudden won the day?”

    The answer lies in two areas. The first is that speaking about Rousseau is fine, but it is modern science today that is used to support many moral issues. Modern science claims to be free of teleological arguments when explaining the World, but one often hears a scientist making moral claims justified in science. Of course science cannot speak about moral for the simple reason that the foundation of ethics is the freedom to choose the purpose for one’s action: teleology. Society’s source of learning is founded on modern science, and that is what is taught in the schools.

    The second is the loss of a rational basis for ethics because of the moral relativism that the media imbibes in social consciousness, and more recently the moral skepticism that the Internet has been to spread quite rapidly.

    I find it amusing that so much attention is paid to psychology. Anything labeled a “science” seems to have some importance for many people. The problem with the social sciences including psychology is that they predict almost nothing that cannot be known without them. The hallmark of a modern science is accurate prediction of events in the future, such as what physics does. Because they cannot predict event in the future with accuracy, the social sciences are pseudo-sciences, and as such are easily used to convey opinion, particularly ideological opinions.

    • Joseph Lammers

      Ted, this is a perceptive post. I’ve long thought that the social sciences shouldn’t really be considered sciences at all. They are too prone to manipulation and confirmation bias. Much of social science research has an obvious political or social agenda, often to undermine traditional, and specifically Christian morality.

      • Ted K

        Joseph, the point of demarcation from a science to a pseudo-science has been an important and controversial issue for quite some time in the Philosophy of Science. Perhaps because of its specialised field in academic Philosophy and its very technical language this is not well known by the general population. Academics in the so-called social sciences are very sensitive to this accusation of pseudo-science, and therefore have traditionally hidden their weakness by using mathematics (eg statistics) in their ramblings.
        I mention predictability as a general criterion because it is fairly obvious that the conclusion “Same sex attraction (SSA) is not a mental disorder”, or its converse, is not predictable and cannot be a scientific statement.
        Karl Popper had another criterion, that of falsafiability. A scientific statement must leave itself open to being falsifiable by experiment. How can one possibly falsify using scientific methodology the statement “SSA is a mental disorder”, or its converse? Clearly, neither one of these statement is scientific in the modern sense, but they are ethical statements rooted in one’s value sphere, and yet science prides itself of being value-free in the ethical sense.

        • Joseph Lammers

          Thanks for the information. I don’t think what we call the social sciences are useless, (with the possible exception of sociology) but I don’t think we should consider them science either. My degree is in history (BA only) and while I’m glad I went to college and have a degree I don’t fool myself into thinking it is the same as a degree in physics or engineering. I’ve often been accused of being historically ignorant, or racist or whatever in online discussions because I don’t generally have left-liberal views and believe in traditional Catholic doctrine.

  • Vincent

    Just like Rousseau may have done his best to suppress Aristotle and thus cause many problems. Many Catholics Clergy have suppressed St. Thomas Aquinas both directly and indirectly and have caused confusion and indifference amongst Catholics. Removing the teachings of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas makes it easy for people to think and do and persist in doing strange things.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      The Church of the Fathers believed they could dispense with Aristotle very well. As Bl John Henry Newman records, “Aristotle was looked upon as the teacher of all that was unfit for a Christian to hold, “That miserable Aristotle!” says Tertullian, “who invented dialects, the art of building up and pulling down.”—De Præscr. 7. Nazianzen speaks of “the artifice of Aristotle’s art as among the plagues of Egypt.”—Orat. 26. Jerome says, that “the dialecticians, whose master is Aristotle, pass whole days and nights in asking and answering questions, giving or accepting a thesis, stating, proving, concluding.”—In Tit. iii. 9. Faustinus, the Luciferian, calls Aristotle the Bishop of the Arians; and Damascene says that the Monophysites made him a thirteenth Apostle. All parts of the Church unite in condemning him and his art; we have a consensus veterum on the subject, and the general feeling is summed up by Ambrose in the beautiful apothegm, “Non in dialecticâ complacuit Deo salvum facere populum suum.” [It is not through dialectic that it has pleased God to save his people]

      • Vincent

        I’m not sure I even follow you. Your comment is a string of quotations that leaves out St. Thomas Aquinas. Tell me what did St. Thomas Aquinas say of Aristotle? How did he refer to him? The Nicomachean Ethics is one of thee most important books in the western canon of civilization.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          I have given you the opinions of Aristotle entertained by Tertullian in the 3rd century, of St Ambrose, Faustinus, St Gregory Nazianzen (St Gregory the Theologian) and St Jerome in the 4th and St John Damascene in the 7th, all, but Tertullian and Faustinus, saints and doctors of the undivided Church and the other two witnesses, at least, to the belief of their age. It would be easy enough to multiply citations.

          There is not a shred of evidence that any Christian writer of the first seven centuries thought that “Removing the teachings of Aristotle… makes it easy for people to think and do and persist in doing strange things.” On the contrary, the Churches of East and West believed that the pure teaching of the Apostles, as it was received and thoroughly tested in the first eight centuries of our era and in the seven ecumenical, most holy and inspired councils of the undivided Church was a sufficient safeguard. “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

          Where Aquinas differs from Antiquity, I shall follow Antiquity

          • Vincent

            You really didn’t answer my questions. But your response shows that you are not willing, though you seem to have the educational background to do so. One would have to conclude based on your disposal of Aristotle that you think the 4 cardinal natural virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice are not that important and you can just jump to the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. People are thinking and doing and persisting in doing strange things because they don’t know and understand and do not cultivate the natural and theological virtues. (Which you would get with a solid Aristotelian and Thomistic education) They were never introduced nor taught to them in a concise manner. We have to co-operate with the Holy Spirit, it can’t change our free will, that’s why the natural virtues along with the theological virtues are so important.

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              Right living is inculcated on virtually every page of the New Testament: “to renounce the world, and differ in every temper and way of life, from the spirit and the way of the world: to renounce all its goods, to fear none of its evils, to reject its joys, and have no value for its happiness: to be as new-born babes, that are born into a new state of things: to live as pilgrims in spiritual watching, in holy fear, and heavenly aspiring after another life: to take up our daily cross, to deny ourselves, to profess the blessedness of mourning, to seek the blessedness of poverty of spirit: to forsake the pride and vanity of riches, to take no thought for the morrow, to live in the profoundest state of humility, to rejoice in worldly sufferings: to reject the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life: to bear injuries, to forgive and bless our enemies, and to love mankind as God loves them: to give up our whole hearts and affections to God, and strive to enter through the strait gate into a life of eternal glory.”

              What can any heathen philosopher add to that?

  • hombre111

    Actually, the argument is much, much older than that. What is the core of reality? “Being,” said Parmenides the ancient Greek, who believed that all reality is grounded on something unchanging and unchangeable. “Becoming,” said Heraclitus, his contemporary, who noted that nobody steps in the same river twice. For a couple of thousand years, Being ruled, and humanity did not have to fear change. The concept of being was explored by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and all the great classical philosophers. But philosophy foundered on the rock of dualism. In the desperate effort to solve the enigma, some denied the existence of spirit and became materialists. A few other denied the existence of matter. Philosophy was reduced to logic and word study.
    And then the tidal wave of history and the discoveries of science rolled over the descendants of Parmenides, whose philosophies could not deal with rapid change, or with the truth probed by the emotions, imagination, and intuition, or with cultural diversity, or evolution or relativity, or quantum physics with its law of probability. Now, Heraclitus is having his turn. Classical thinkers are like gourmet diners at table on a ship in a rolling sea. Everything goes up and down, and they are getting seasick.

    • Thomas

      Becoming what?
      Hopefully good people and not NAMBLA members.

    • redfish

      As far as I’m aware, anyway, Rousseau did consider the family natural, and used it as a model for the state, but thought both were only natural through being voluntary assocations. Children give obedience to their parents because of their relationship to them.

      Rousseau wasn’t perfect, but conservatives often overinterpret him.

      I also have a big problem with the idea that moral issues being medicalized and treated as illnesses to be treated rather than personal faults that require introspection.

      • C.Caruana

        I’m afraid you are not aware far enough, Rousseau did not consider the family natural, since his idea of the family has nothing natural about it. Neither did his personal ‘family’ life style, which was non existent. He is a thorough cheat, unfortunately highly influential with those who prefer an inauthentic life style nowadays.

  • Objectivetruth

    Just a little bit of a tangent off topic, you’re seeing more and more of the gay mafia’s negative influence with the firing of the Benham brothers at HGTV because of their strong Christian belief that living out the gay lifestyle is a grave sin. There will be more and more of this martyrdom by the gay mafia on Christians, everyone must prepare for this continued persecution in our society from those who’d rather live in the city of Sodom, then the City of God.

  • cpsho

    Excerpts:
    That evening at the garish gay bar, Robert Spitzer sat down and changed
    the 81 offending words in the DMV. Such is science done in the age of
    non-science, anti-science, scientism.
    .
    In 2008 this hero of the gay movement wrote a public letter in which he
    said, “Let us have more and better enjoyment of more and better sexual
    perversions, by whatever definition, by more and more consenting
    adults…. If bestiality with consenting animals provides happiness to
    some people, let hem pursue their happiness. This is Americanism in
    action.”
    .
    Now someone explain to me why the catechism of the Catholic Church #2357 has this statement inserted; “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. ”
    .
    Was the CDF (under JP 2 and Cardinal Ratzinger) now part of the “Gay Agenda”?.
    .
    Is the sentence asserting that homosexuality has biologic origins? Is it
    speculating about its psychological origins? Is it implying that God
    makes some people to specifically have homosexual temptations? Is it
    opening a door to the possibility of scientific advancement in future,
    that may show that people with homosexual temptations are created that
    way, and therefore the temptations might not be temptations after all?
    Is it speculating that if the psychological origins of homosexual
    temptations are adequately explained, then homosexual feelings,
    relationships and acts may become legitimate?
    http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/04/02/category-archive-message-board-24/
    http://prophetamos3m.com/6.html

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      You know me, I’m a tiresome bore! On these pages I keep asking the question: “Why is it ill-advised, impolite, impolitic, to raise the question about the etiology of homosexuality?”

      We do it for pedophilia. We’re so certain of its wrongness we zero in on its cause(s). Well, at least we used it – call it wrong, zero in! Yet, even there we may be shut down. For once the condition of pedophilia is granted the privilege (the covering) of “identity”, then its inevitable acceptance will follow the path set out by that of homosexuality.

      But, then, maybe out society needs to be pushed to the edge of that abyss to be prodded into action.

      But first must come the very visible paiful persecution of those who voice opposition to the privileged, protected status of homosexuality. I know, that has already happened: just tic off the incidents within this past year. I am talking about something that is so brutal, or horrendous, that it bores into the heart of every parent. For when THAT persecution comes we will then know the Gay Agenda.

      Once our pastors, bishops, and editors are scared witless they will be in position to register opposition to the “normalization” of pedophilia, incest, S&M, and all the rest.

      What do you say, give 5 years max? Heck no. More like a year, give or take a few months. It will certainly happen before our “gay” president vacates the White House.

      • cpsho

        I get your drift. Really to me this homosexuality issue has the potential to do serious damage to the RCC; particularly the priesthood.
        .
        We KNOW the cause of homosexuality. It is due to the sin committed in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality is due to a fallen human nature, living in a fallen world, being constantly harassed by fallen angels. It is the devil’s plan.
        No scientific finding can ever make “gay” okay. No psychological genesis can ever make “gay” okay. The catechism should clearly state this, since in their wisdom they decided to introduce the term “psychological genesis” in the text of the catechism.
        .
        Anybody who commits homosexual acts or condones homosexual acts in any way labels himself with the Mark of the Beast (666) and unless he repents is headed
        for a very unpleasant place.
        The only solution is repentance and turning to our Lord Jesus.
        http://www.prophetamos3m.com/6.html

  • Mary

    In NH marriage was redefined without a public vote and it was a plurality of Democrats who decided to do the dirty deed blocking any kind of state wide referendum on the issue— many felt betrayed and a great sense of injustice. The silence of the Church leaders was deafening. I think the Democratic party should be renamed the demoncrats because they back every social direction that is an attack on traditional moral views. They have become the champions of abortion, the sexual revolution including promiscuity for our youth through sex education programs that promote sexual activity, and now promote experimenting with homosexual activity. Still the Church remains silent. Recently a parent in a near by town was handcuffed and led out of a meeting for speaking past a two minute time limit protesting materials used in the classroom that were too pornographic for local newspapers to print. People who still have a conscience become the criminals.

  • Patricksday

    Violence and denial of human rights is not Okay. Your born Gay, you dont make a choice, and its not something that is going to start growing, unless its from people who no longer have to fear loosing their jobs, apartments, or Life by nuts who proclaim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I will pray to Jesus on my death bed, NOT St. Paul who did not hang on a cross for my sins.

    • Holy smokes

      Human rights are rights that apply to all humans, but even though we should have natural rights that are really nothing more than living according to natural law. Gay rights are a group of rights claimed by those who want to justify unnatural sexual relations (emotional or physical). They are special rights claimed that undermine the natural rights (natural law) of the natural family. Please stop the emotive, illogical argument and be a man. How dare you sidestep the main arguments of the article with this buffoonery.

    • Interested

      You are confused, very confused.

      • Patricksday

        May God open your Heart and Mind to see all as your brothers and sisters, and that you over come your hysteria over what Gay people are doing. If Gay people break the law they are arrested just as you would be.

        • Objectivetruth

          May God open your mind to his will. Please read and thoughtfully meditate on the following from the Catholic Catechism:

          “2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

        • Interested

          Self absorption and persecution complexes are part of the disorder.

        • ForChristAlone

          Please come back to normalcy, Patrick. We await your return to Christ’s fold. Be free of your sexual partner so that he, too, may return to Christ.

    • Objectivetruth

      Yes, Jesus Christ did do beautiful works!

      It was no coincidence Jesus performed His first miracle at a traditional Jewish wedding, between a young man and woman. His very prescence was a blessing to the holiness of marriage, once again between a man and woman. Beautiful work!

      Paul, an apostle of Christ, was a reflection of Christ’s teachings. Paul did not voice his own opinion in His letters, he voiced the will of Christ. Paul teaching us that “man lieing with man is an abomination” is not Paul’s teaching, but Christ’s.

      You are misguided and incorrect.

    • I was born with an inclination to punch anyone who cuts me off in traffic in the face. I didn’t choose this. But of course it would wrong to act on it. Same with same-sex attraction. Discovering where an inclination comes from might have useful explanatory power, it will NEVER have a nanogram of justifying power.

      Our Lord ratified the judgment meted out to Sodom and Gemmorah (and no, they were not destroyed for inhospitality). Also, the “Jesus never said anything about _______” non-argument is covered in the parable of the rich man and Lazurus. “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.”

      • Objectivetruth

        Amen……

        And today thankfully we have Christ’s thoughts and feelings in the teachings of His Church, the Catholic Church. The Church speaks doctrinally on the sin of sodomy and the gay agenda. To those of the gay mafia that pushes back, to you I say “you have the Catholic Church, listen to it.”

        Like the Rich man with Lazarus, before it’s too late.

      • Patricksday

        Violence is not Love. May you be blessed with a Gay family member that will teach you first hand we are more than SEX. Ignorance and Stereotypes and FEAR of what others will think of you if you embrace someone who is Gay is something you need to work out. Jesus Christ never preached against Homosexuality. Nor did Moses.

        • Interested

          Perverted acts are not loving. Unnatural desires are not from God. May our Lord open your heart and eyes to the Truth and to authentic love.

          • Patricksday

            I live in the present day and My God is amazing and loving. Just as he Loves you for your ignorance and judgement against one of his creations.

            • Interested

              They only ignorance is calling vice love. Save your propaganda for the shallow relativists. No one is buying your nonsense.

            • Objectivetruth

              But why have you chosen to turn your back on God’s love for earthly narcissism and self centeredness?

            • ForChristAlone

              Patrick, you are living out a fantasy.

        • Obviously we have to be compassionate to family members even when they sin, but no one would say, “May you be blessed with an alcoholic family member.” Or “May you be blessed with a neo-Nazi family member.”

          Sexual contact between humans is morally appropriate in one situation and one situation alone: between a man and woman in a marriage. This is attested to by Scripture, Tradition, reason, history, and simple apprehension.

          • Patricksday

            I have no shame for my 32 year committed relationship with my Husband. Let us be, your still free to do as you always have. May you find ways to show the Love of Christ, rather than playing God your self. You have no idea what Gods purpose was for creating Gay people, but you judge us like you have all of the answers. If you do please explain the universe and all the possible life forms that are out there. Love liberates, and like a muscle it needs exercise. Have you noticed? The more you do it the stronger and easier it is to do. Peace be with you, the Gays are a minority we are hardly taking over the world.

            • Just as one does not need to be God to know that stealing is immoral, so one does not need to be God to know that sexual contact outside of a traditional marriage is an offense against chastity. Having yet to make a coherent argument, you are desperately resorting to getting person. If you were so at peace with what you are doing, you wouldn’t be here trying to rationalize.

            • Objectivetruth

              God didn’t create “gay” people. People like yourself who decided to sin against God’s will created “gay” people.

            • ForChristAlone

              If you have a husband, you must be a woman. If you are not a woman, you cannot have a husband. Not that I have set you straight, time to behave accordingly.

        • Objectivetruth

          Jesus Christ never preached against abortion, drug abuse, and cheating on your taxes either, but we know he doesn’t approve of them.

          Someone who has a homosexual proclivity and remains chaste and does not act upon it or make it a “lifestyle” does not sin. If that is you, congratulations. Someone with a homosexual proclivity however that acts upon that temptation in the form of sexual acts of perversion such as anal sex (sodomy or) oral sex or tries to promote such a lifestyle, if that is you, be forewarned. You are consciously going against God’s will and have turned from His love. You’re soul is in grave danger. Repent, and sin. No more.

          • Patricksday

            Corporate America gets a pass from the United States Catholic Bishops on its destruction of American for personal greed and selfishness, even Pope Francis is calling the CEO’s out. But you get to put that in a different box, because it has nothing to do with SEX. Try having your eyes roll back in your head some time, its quite healing.

            • CadaveraVeroInnumero

              Next, someone will be saying that taking the chains and whips out on a S&M client is a “gift from God”. Been there – of sorts – no gift, son, no gift in that.

              Really, if the bishops, led by cardinals, do not lead the faithful in mass demonstrations on the public squares – we’re done as a nation and as a Church.

              Maybe the Lord will reconstitute the Church several generations down the road when our society has had its fill, and the bishops stop fearing the good opinion of perversion – and the perverted.

              • Art Deco

                Aye, at some wretched mainline protestant div school. Around about 15 years ago, Richard John Neuhaus recounted a stupefying tale of an event at one of the Ivy League divinity schools (which involved faculty referring to ‘holy condoms’.) and asked if any of his readers remembered ‘Sister Boom-Boom’. What had been an outre parody ca. 1982 was being offered as part of the program 15 years later.

              • Interested

                It is demonic.

        • 1776Mariner

          Hmmm…I have three gay family members whom I love. But I agree with Scott W. and not you, Patrickday.

          • Patricksday

            Pope Benedict has taught you well, may you discover the Jesus Christ that the Bishops dont promote.

            • Interested

              Relativist.

              • Art Deco

                No, cliche machine.

                • Interested

                  The small minded believe the lies. He/she is not profound or deep but he/she hits the usual propaganda points.

            • Objectivetruth

              May you discover that you’ve warped Christ’s Truths to try to justify a sinful lifestyle you’ve created for yourself.

        • Objectivetruth

          I am blessed with family member with a homosexual tendency who realized early on in life that following Christ’s true teachings in the Catholic Church would lead him to joy and peace, and that following the perversions of the gay lifestyle would only lead him to heartache and the death of his soul.

    • Roscoe Bonsweenie

      Alcoholics are born with their perversity. Should they be allowed to ruin society as the gays have decided to do?

      How do you get Paul never met Jesus? Acts 9:4 and 22:7 I believe.

    • Interested

      No person is born gay as that is a political label not biology. Even if one is born with done defect one acknowledges the defect and works to correct it or love with it. One does not celebrate the defect or claim it is consistent with health or the moral norm.

    • C.Caruana

      Jesus accepts everyone, but not every behaviour from everyone. ”Go and sin no more.” The blasphemous canard by some homosexuals is that Jesus was one of them – The ultimate in self-delusion.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    You want evidence about the “Gaying of America”? OK, guys, read this by Robert Oscar Lopez:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/christian_brotherhoodan_impeachable_offense_gay_incest_celebrated.html

    The writer edges upon that scary question: that homosexuality is so enthralled, so taken up, so identified with youth, that the merging of homosexuality and pedophilia is – can we say – absolute.

    (Go to the archives and read a few of his past articles.)

    • Art Deco

      I think you mean pederasty, not paedophilia. I suspect if you carefully cross-examine active homosexuals, you discover the former is just off normal, an atypical but not maligned taste preference like cross-dressing or s & m, and the next item on the to do list will be erasing age-of-consent laws inconvenient to homosexuals. I tend to doubt organized homosexuality is going to cash in any chits to benefit paedophiles.

      • CadaveraVeroInnumero

        I yield to your lexicon! Too bad I can’t do a “find & replace” to correct all my postings!

        By “organized homosexuality” I’m assuming you mean the mainstream bunch: you know, the Modern Family, gays on fields trips to the White House. Stuff like that.

        Care to differ, though. With the present heaping up of gay victories I don’t think they would mind if paeidophiles benefit. Such have been within the Gay Movement from the beginning. Besides, if the age-of-consent can be lowered (age 12, for instance) that would only expand and validate those victories – make the mainstream gay more comfortable being and advertizing that precious all-consuming identity of his. That goal, anyway, drives the motivation of the full-bore campaign mainstream gays are waging the public schools to normalize homosexuality at the moment a kid thinks he’s gay: that sinister letter “Q” in LGBTQQI signifying “questioning”. Mainstream gays burn that “Q” brand on every kid they can. (The second “Q” stands for “queer”; a very precious all-explaining notion, by the way, to the New Homophiles.)

        • Art Deco

          Moral panic about child molestation aligns well with socially-sanctioned aggression harbored by women in general, by the social work apparat, by the educational apprat, and by the mental health trade. Attempts to legitimize paedophilia would lead to conflicts between different components of the Anointed and expressed in court as well as the deliberations of the Democratic Party. You’d have to contrive a portfolio of excuses which would legitimate sexual molestation while still putting walls between children and ordinary adult men. I do not think that circle will be squared any time soon.

          I am not sure about this, but I suspect paedophiles tend to be loners or to be connected through the internet. I tend to doubt they are a flesh-and-blood subculture bar groupscules which form among quondam prison inmates or group therapy denizens. The late Ryan Loskarn seems to have been a Janus faced character, partially incorporated into D.C.’s gay subculture while pursuing pedo-pornography online.

          • CadaveraVeroInnumero

            Not saying the normalization of paedophilia will be smooth sailing and all that. Its slithering through the courts will not be that oiled. But projecting that difficulty through the (still repulsive) profile of a typical paedophile does not rest the matter. Do not underestimate the powerful adjudication authority which the notions of “victimization” and “identity” have over the worldview of those social/occupational groups you listed. Such notions are dogma to them.

            The template of normalization of paedophilia has already been set by the Gaying of America (as Reilly detailed. That template has – within a matter of months – already been effectively applied to the normalization of transexualism — as it will, shortly, to the acceptance of multiple partner marriages.

            The normalization will come from the standing of, not your typical dirty old man in his trench coat, but from the child: from his “natural”. “constitutional” right to express his(her) sexual identity. The tagline is already upon us in the professional literature: “the adult-attracted child”.

            Just follow the trajectory of sex education in the public (and often, the Catholic) schools.

            The paedophilia “community” are no fools. (And they are well placed within your listed social/occupational groups, as they are – had been – in the priesthood.) That “community” is not currently, publicly advocating sex with five year-olds; their (wiggly) demarcation line will be the onset of puberty. Then comes . . .

            Pay close attention to how often, within the storytelling of gays, they assert that they KNEW they were “gay” when they were 10, 8, even 5. The underlying theme is that if one can KNOW he or she is “gay” at age 8, then society should affirm and support that identity. There, unfortunately, is a “community” out there willing to do so.

  • MarkRutledge

    Thank you, Mr. Ruse, for another fine article of yours since I heard your “empty glass” talk at a Cardinal Mindzenty conference too many years ago.
    The late falderal over the drafting of Micheal Sam by the Rams has brought home the tremendous impact the equating of gay rights with the civil rights struggles of blacks half a century ago has had. Yet this would not have succeeded had the “born that way” campaign not been successful. Which, I suppose, is built upon a string of earlier PR successes such as what Reilly describes. I suppose one lesson, then, is to not give ground even when it seems trivial and/or inconsequential.

  • Pingback: What It Means that Jesus Is the Good Shepherd - BigPulpit.com()

  • Kim58

    How did this happen so quickly? The answer might be found in one particular act that is not mentioned in this article. Our society has over the last 50 years come to accept deliberately sterilized sexual acts between heterosexuals as normal. So once most people have come to accept that idea, it is really really hard to then explain why homosexual acts should be considered bad. If most heterosexuals actually respected the obvious design of their bodies and didn’t resort to deliberately separating the natural design of the human male and female body to both create a new life as well as bring pleasure, then I think we would not be in this situation we are in today. At no other point in history has contraception been so accepted as normal by humans and been so widely available and used by humans. This resulting “gaying” of America (and the world for that matter) will also be be something history has never seen before either. So far it’s not promising to be a good thing for humanity. But where there is great darkness, there is also great hope…all of us, both homosexual and heterosexual, will always have the chance to turn from our selfish ways. When we do it will be a much more peaceful world. Either that or Christ will return…I’m not sure which will happen first. I do hope more people will find peace in Christ before he returns…I don’t wish for so much of the world to be deprived of the chance to be with God forever!

  • Lea Singh

    One thing I would like to add to the discussion is the recognition of Robert Reilly as very courageous for writing this book in the first place. Given today’s climate, it takes an act of true personal courage to tackle this topic. He is certain to get crucified in the media, and many people who agree with his analysis will not defend him for fear of personal repercussions in the workplace and elsewhere. Such are the times we live in – the ideology that Reilly exposes has already had grave impacts on our freedoms, and many people are being heavily constrained in unofficial ways, especially through self-censure.

MENU